Data can lead to theories, and are much more testable, and repeatable, than anecdotes are. If you are going to make a claim about something, at least be willing to be scientific about it. (Which, by way of a disclaimer, I am fully willing to be.)_________________"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake

The basis of the scientific method is evidence and testing, is it not? Well, I have both evidence and tests that support my claims, and others do as well, including others in this thread. I don't know what other kind of scientific evidence you'd need. But it's not like I really have to prove anything to you in the first place...your opinion and/or experience isn't going to change the fact that my experience is the way it is._________________If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

The basis of the scientific method is evidence and testing, is it not? Well, I have both evidence and tests that support my claims, and others do as well, including others in this thread. I don't know what other kind of scientific evidence you'd need.

What I see in this thread is a bunch of whining about the perceived slowness of .NET applications; I do not see that as evidence. What I think would be more indicative would be a test across a number of applications, written in both a control language (you mentioned VC6 at one point) and in a .NET language, with each application having the exact same feature set. Provide profiling information for a number of executions of the applications, as well as some video footage of standard usage, etc. Now perform this on a series of computers, both high and low end. Preferably, these tests would be done without the tester knowing whether he is executing a .NET application or a Win-API application. This is solid evidence. Pointing out that the GUI renders too slowly for your tastes is not; that's unsubstantiated opinion.

If you have hard evidence, then provide it. But make sure that the evidence you provide is realistic; being an applications developer myself, I can testify that quite substantial changes accrue to an application's code-base between versions. Showing a control version of an application, which just happens to have a smaller feature-set than the application being tested, strikes me as silly. This is, of course, appealing to your main complaint: the speed of the GUI rendering. But, if nothing else, assert that the two applications are, at the very least, using the same choice of algorithms for doing the similar features. Sure, this is a bit out of the control for the API calls, but for everything built on top, it should be rather straight-forward.

Quote:

But it's not like I really have to prove anything to you in the first place...your opinion and/or experience isn't going to change the fact that my experience is the way it is.

You have that backward, a bit: you proving your claim ought to change my opinion, yes? And if, by some strange happenstance, the tests disprove your hypothesis, then that ought to change your opinion, yes?_________________"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake

Then show me a performant dotnet-based application that serves a real-world purpose for the common user. Your condescending bullshit about "whining about perceived slowness" is garbage. Furthermore, these tests you speak of are meaningless when it comes down to the individual user...no one gives three shits that such and such program runs correctly on X computer...they only care if it runs correctly on THEIR OWN computer. It seems that the general consensus here is that dotnet applications are slow on the machines they have run on, and these are the individual users' computers. If it runs fast on yours, then more power to you, but none of us have your computer. Therefore, your experience is just as valid as anyone who has experience contrary to your own, whether you like it or not.

The fact that the GUI elements render slowly on many dotnet-based applications I have run is substantial evidence of its lack of performance. Of all the basic functions of an application, the visual frontend is the FIRST thing that should perform well._________________If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

Then show me a performant dotnet-based application that serves a real-world purpose for the common user.

I could show you the stuff I work on, but I don't think you would be willing to shell out the $700 US for it.

Quote:

Your condescending bullshit about "whining about perceived slowness" is garbage.

You are whining, so it is not garbage; if you have hard evidence, show it, and I'll stop complaining about your whining. An anecdote is not evidence.

Quote:

Furthermore, these tests you speak of are meaningless when it comes down to the individual user...no one gives three shits that such and such program runs correctly on X computer...they only care if it runs correctly on THEIR OWN computer.

My point was to find usage information for a wide variety of computers, not for a single computer. I think that would be very meaningful for end users; if it were not, then people would not upgrade their machines. Besides: how do you expect to improve applications (yours or others) with anecdotes?

Quote:

It seems that the general consensus here is that dotnet applications are slow on the machines they have run on, and these are the individual users' computers.

General consensus is only indicative of group-think; it really says nothing about actual hard usage data. Like I said, give me timing data for rendering and what not, and I will drop the issue. With an apology, even.

Quote:

If it runs fast on yours, then more power to you, but none of us have your computer. Therefore, your experience is just as valid as anyone who has experience contrary to your own, whether you like it or not.

Did I ever claim otherwise? I even pointed out a few posts ago that anecdotal evidence is pointless, as it proves nothing. What I am asking for is something more concrete than hearsay.

Quote:

The fact that the GUI elements render slowly on many dotnet-based applications I have run is substantial evidence of its lack of performance.

Unless you can showcase it, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not evidence._________________"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake

Then I guess we're both without evidence, eh? You can't show your work off, and I doubt you'd be willing to install all the programs I've tried out. Frankly, I'm not even willing to reinstall all the junk I've previously installed, the installers are slow enough. And like I said, I only have a single dotnet-based program that I really have to use, the rest were either "upgraded" versions of apps I had been using for ages beforehand (hence a seriously noticeable performance difference), or any kind of new software I wanted to check out...a couple of IDEs (one was noted by its developers to require a 1GHz computer just to run...wtf is that about?), a 3D modeller, a handful of games, and various "professional" utilities, including an expensive notation plotter ('twas a demo version, I sure wasn't going to pay its hellish price, especially with how turtlish it ran).

When I say "general consensus", I'm not talking about group-think. I love how you twist things around to support your arguments. When several people with similar experiences share said experiences, you consider them to have herd mentality? Wtf?

I do, however, find it humorous that you keep citing the word "anecdote", as if everyone's experience is invalid and no one but you has the "true answer" just because you do this professionally. Is it zealousy? Furthermore, isn't your own experience also anecdotal? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

Arguing with you is fruitless, as always. Nothing penetrates that stubbornness of yours, not even logic and experience._________________If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

Then I guess we're both without evidence, eh? You can't show your work off, and I doubt you'd be willing to install all the programs I've tried out.

I can agree with that; while I would be willing to take part of the evidence-gathering procedure, I do not have the time to waste on such an effort, as I assume that you do not.

Quote:

When I say "general consensus", I'm not talking about group-think. I love how you twist things around to support your arguments. When several people with similar experiences share said experiences, you consider them to have herd mentality? Wtf?

Yes.

Quote:

I do, however, find it humorous that you keep citing the word "anecdote", as if everyone's experience is invalid and no one but you has the "true answer" just because you do this professionally. Is it zealousy? Furthermore, isn't your own experience also anecdotal? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

I have stated on two occasions, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring, that my experiences are just as anecdotal as those of every one else in this thread. So, no: I am not be hypocritical. And no, it is not zealotry; (I'm not even sure why I am arguing in favor of .NET applications, in any case; I only use it as I am paid to use it. My personal stuff is done in other languages on other platforms.) The last few posts I have made have, if nothing else, been asking for a scientific process to discover real information we can all agree on. Anecdotal evidence is good for forming hypotheses about things; it is not good to use in lieu of hard evidence of a phenomena. Whenever I have been, as you say, "citing the word 'anecdote'", I have been merely pointing out that you have not proven anything.

As you say above, I myself do not have hard evidence to provide to you; I would be willing to make some, and if I had some readily available, I would provide it. You keep saying you have evidence; where is it? Is it too much to ask for some hard numbers? You say that you do not want to reinstall the programs you used; I can understand that, and I shall not press you for more information; but are you at least willing to acknowledge that your experience is not verifiable, with the constraints in place that you presented it in, by others?

Quote:

Arguing with you is fruitless, as always. Nothing penetrates that stubbornness of yours, not even logic and experience.

Right back at you._________________"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake

Example of an .net game: Land of Legends. Nice (if not particularly ambitious) turn-based strategy game. Not quite the fastest game ever, but I'm willing to blame that on the actual computational complexity of the AI. The user interface at least is responsive on my computer.

While this says nothing about the performance penalties of .net, it does suggest that .net is fast and responsive enough for small, unambitious games. Then again, so is Python, and Python is at least 10 times slower than C++.

Example of an .net game: Land of Legends. Nice (if not particularly ambitious) turn-based strategy game. Not quite the fastest game ever, but I'm willing to blame that on the actual computational complexity of the AI. The user interface at least is responsive on my computer.

Ohhh, is that any good? I played the demo when it came out and thought about buying it, but then I sorta just forgot about it._________________http://www.distractionware.com